PZC vote 7-2
The PZC voted 7-2 in favor of the proposal (Marinaro & Maye opposed).
As far as I'm concerned, this was a mistake. In either this phase or the prior phase (zone text change) there should have been more pro-environment requirements. But this Commission had little interest in such measures... too bad for the town... and too bad for the environment.
More troubling to me though is this pattern where town staff and Commission members answer questions that, IMO, are legal in nature. Of course, that same failure occurs on the Town Council where people, other than the Town Attorney, weigh in with "legal" advice. No doubt all the "legal" advice that is given to elected officials will eventually come back to haunt the town when getting sued for something or other. Perhaps at that point the town's legal counsel will be given the opportunity to speak.
As for the particular reasons given for/against the proposal... I didn't get to see the whole meeting (I had Energy Commission tonight)... but I heard at least one of the usual cheerleaders, as well as Leslie Marinaro speak. The comments I heard from Leslie were largely focused on traffic. And I was told that Andy Maye's comments were largely focused on sewers and the environment.
And as I've said before... I'm not opposed to this project. I'm just opposed to it as proposed. Too bad the PZC got weak in the knees and punted when it came time to play hardball.
As for real reporting on this... I saw the Town Hall press corps there. So it'll probably be in every daily tomorrow. And as for blogging on this topic and my request for Council opinions... no responses yet. I'll keep you posted. Until then...
Your thoughts?
Tim White
Update: NHR online
WRA online
26 comments:
Tim, you are a coward. You voted in favor of the proposal when it was on your desk, now you critcize the PZC for voting in the affirmative. You always have answers to everything here in your blog.
I am against the proposal as it stands as well, but your negativity is an embarrasment to the town. Try using your position to make change not just to make noise.
By the way Tim, where do you live exactly? What town do you reside in ? Not where do you own property. You should run for council in that town.
It was a huge win for our local developers, Paul Bowman, Doug Calcagni and Frank DiNatali.
At last, Cheshire can have its own Queen St. From the Meriden-Waterbury road to Maplecroft let the sprawl begin. Now that the vote is in, watch the applications pour in.
It should not come as any big surprise, as this was predicted in early February 2007, "It's is a done deal".
By the way Tim, where do you live exactly? What town do you reside in ?
Cheshire. Why do you ask?
At the January 16 meeting Marty Coburn distributed a Findings paper that he said he wrote to the commission. It was stamped DRAFT and contained 20 items that he said the commission had to vote affirmatively on each of the items and if only one item was not positively voted on, the application would be rejected. At the time the public was not aware aware of this draft, written by Marty with probably help from the Planning Office and maybe even the applicant. Although the document was stamped DRAFT, it read very much like the final approval. Now this was written before Jan 16, the first deliberation meeting.
Unknown to Marty, a copy of this approval document was leaked to a blogger who posted it to their website and other websites picked it up also. What an embarassment. Marty then said it was only a draft not the final approval and it was written in the positive because a previous town lawyer said that it should be.
Well, as it turned out, there was no public discussion on the 20 points. If there was a discussion, then it either happened in cyberspace or behind closed doors. There was no discussion of the 20 points on the Jan 16, the Jan 22 meeting that lasted only 1 hr and 15 minutes and there was no dicussion of the 20 points in the short approval meeting of the 28th. And, there was never vote before the public on the 20 items.
To see Marty's draft and an alternate view point
Click here
Tim, this is your neighbor at the corner of Bradford. That is you I wave to every night when you come home isn't it? Or are they saying you have a twin brother!
Had an error trying to access the ALTERNATE VIEW POINT?
ALTERNATE VIEW
The big problem I had with last nights meeting was the lack of discussion on the residential. Only one P&Z member (LM) even mentioned it. From what I understood the residential could not be approved unless a need for this housing was shown. Were was a need shown? Most residents are opposed to the residential and it was not given a mention. Give a big pat on the back to all the realtors in town.
The entire project proposal and process for review and determination has been a miserable failure. The driving force of greed has been established. Many of our town officials, both elected and appointed including the Town Manager, Director of Planning and many commission members have sold their sorry souls for what? Does the P&Z think they can still change their mind when the site plans are presented? Do they think they can say no to a new application for other parcels of the Interchange Zone? The whole story is all so sad.
Seven members of the P&Z deserve an F- for the reasons they gave in approving this project. This was the most pitiful demonstration by an elected commission regarding the lack of "Due Diligence". The Town of Cheshire got screwed today and for years to come.
Remember these names and never give them your vote again. Ostracize them. They have sold us out. When you see them in the street say, "Hello, Judas."
Martin Cobern
Patricia Flynn-Harris
Earl J. Kurtz, III
Sean Strollo
Woody Dawson
Louis B. Todisco
Matt Hall, Chairman, D
Michael G. Ecke, D
Matt Altieri, D
Elizabeth Esty, D
Diane D. Visconti, D
Tim White, R
Michael Milone, Town Manager
Each member of the P&Z should have had to provide their answers to each of the 20 items. Should have included the basis of their decision making, source documents and why they voted the way they did, other than is no good place to get a hamburger in the North End.
Whats up with Woody not wanting to vote till the guy next to him did? Did he need more time or was waiting to see how the voting was going?
This is awful!!
Last Night's Heroes
A big thanks to the following two great people.
Leslie C. Marinaro
Andre Maye
They stood up and represented the people of Cheshire. Remember to thank them and to vote for them whenever they come up for election again. People like them and Tim Slocum and Paul Ranando who stood up for the peole of Cheshire during the last vote are the kind of people Cheshire needs to represent them. These people took their responsibilities seriously and were not intimidated by the special interest groups, their fellow commissioners or a party boss.
So, give them a big hand. They had a lot to put up with and they stood tall for the people.
Hello Newman
Hello Jerry
Mr. Cobern, Mr. Kurtz and Mr. Stollo would have voted for this even if there was uranium on the site. Once again no TV. Open government at its best.
Excellent, this is a win for all of Cheshire!
The commission members approved the development just like they were supposed to.
The whole process was a charade.
It was carefully planned to not have a lawyer present and televised only when W/S put on a horse and pony show designed to convince the public that this was a good thing.
W/S was so confident that it's applications would be approved that they incorporated
"CHESHIRE ROUTE 10 LLC"
in Deleware on Dec 21, 2006 and that it would Commence Business on
Jan 15, 2007.
December 21 was before they appeared before the town council.
That is interesting because the ex- chair said its been 3 yrs this was before them. The public only found out at a town council meeting in Jan o6. Now many more things will come out especially in court.
Anon 8:19 Give the guy a break at least he was man enough to change his mind when he found out the facts unlike seven members of the P&Z.
10:19 I believe Marty Cobern was speaking of the Spring '04 (four years, not three) "Economic Summit" that included the Council, PZC, WPCA, property owners, developers and others. I could be wrong about the particular issue to which he referred, but that was my sense last night. So I don't think that is really relevant to this particular development, except in a very broad sense.
How does ex- councilman and ex-P&Z member JA fit in to all this? Didn't he suggest this at one time when he was on the TC. It's funny why he didn't run for another term.
If this was such a great thing for Cheshire, why didn't we hear the people responsible for this explain why it was good for Cheshire? Why didn't Paul Bowman, Doug Calgagni and Frank DiNatali explain it? They said nothing. Why didn't they attend the public hearing?
Why were they always referred to as the owners and never named by the Town Council, the Town Manager and all the others who were deeply involved in this.
Their names didn't even come up when the taxpayers put up $275,000 to create a bypass for the 10 mile river flood. The taxpayers should never have paid for this. Why didn't they publicly thank the town for all that was done for them?
The last question is why did W/S ask for residential when they don't have any residential as part of their more tha 60 malls? Who would have an interest?
Isn't it up to the owners, Zoning enforcement officer and the police to make sure that the property was not ruined as was suggested by a few P&Z members? What the heck did that have to do with the decision? It goes to show that we don't enforce our laws. Recently "The POLE SIGN LAW" come to mind.
anon 2:49 you are ignorant
People complain that the Police are too agressive in enforcement, now they arent aggressive enough. The sign law is a nuisance abatement law at best. While each law is important, there is judgement and discretion in enforcement of all laws. Additionally, the property is private as far as enforcement goes. If the town would properly fund the Police instead of relying on Elim Park to pay for specialty enforcment units such as bike/ATV that are required for such enforcement, perhaps there would have been less damage, and maybe even a full time sign enforcement officer as appears to be needed
It's the responsibilty of the property owner monitor and protect their property. They certainly made sure to put up,"NO TRESPASSING" signs of the public hearings. They made sure to get the word out in the press that any trespasser would be arrested. Why the change?
Other property owners in the area protect their property and if they have difficulty with a trespasser they call the police.
The word is that the property owner just let it happen and that friends and family were allowed to use the property for off road vehicles.
12:08AM The town has ATV vehicles for the police to enforce violations by ATV users. The property owner if he had a problem with these people should have contacted them. Apparently the owners (past and present) didn't have a problem until this development was proposed and the damage was used as a reason for approval. The property is PRIVATE and the fact the P&Z members used this as an excuse to approve this development was ridiculous. Since it is PRIVATE they have no jurisdiction over what happened on the property. How this property was maintained was the sole responsibility of the property owner.
Post a Comment